Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Elizabeth MarquisAt first glance, the articles included in this issue of CJSoTL-RCACEA seem to have little in common.Ranging from an examination of the impact of 'catchy' vs. 'conventional' course titles on student interest (Flaherty, McAdams, & LeBlanc) to an analysis of the ways in which conflicts between student and instructor epistemologies influence student transitions to higher education (Crooks), the work contained in the pages that follow in many ways reflects the broad diversity of SoTL, and might even be said to push at its boundaries.Nevertheless, I'm also struck by how the articles, as a set, encourage us to consider both the tools and approaches we deploy in teaching, learning, and SoTL, and the extent to which those tools (broadly defined) function as we think they do.In her oft-cited introduction to Opening Lines, Pat Hutchings (2000) notes that one of the primary questions for many scholars of teaching and learning is whether a particular pedagogical approach or intervention is working-that is, having the desired effect on student learning.This interest in 'what works' is surely reflected in the articles in this issue, as authors consider important questions about effects and outcomes related to inquiry-and research-based pedagogies (Symons, Colgoni, & Harvey; Woolf), reflective writing (Boutet, Vandette, & Valiquette-Tessier) and the course dossier methodology (Khanam & Kalman).At the same time, the scholarship represented here also encourages us to consider whether these pedagogical approaches work equally for everyone, pointing out, for instance, the potential for particular tools or strategies to generate disparities in performance related to gender (Normandeau, Iyengar, & Newling) or personality (Lakhal, Frenette, & Sevigny).In this respect, the issue also asks us to think seriously about the extent to which the tools we use for assessment-both in teaching and in research-actually assess the things they're intended to assess.This issue is brought further to the fore by articles considering the potential impact of item ordering on multiple choice tests (Carnegie), and the role of survey question construction in shaping understanding of how students perceive the benefits of an undergraduate degree (Cole & Martini).These are essential questions that contribute to the ongoing growth and vitality of SoTL as a field.In noting the broad (though by no means uniform) emphasis on issues pertaining to 'what works' in this issue, I also feel compelled to underline the potential significance of the other types of questions Hutchings (2000) describes.For instance, alongside meaningful and critical explorations of the tools and strategies of teaching and learning, Hutchings underscores the potential to ask 'what is' questions that seek to better understand what is happening in particular learning situations, and theory-building questions that aim to develop conceptual frameworks for SoTL.Likewise, in a recent article in Teaching & Learning Inquiry, Bloch-Schulman and colleagues (2016) encourage SoTL scholars to ask a wider range of questions that might allow SoTL to contribute not only to enhancing learning in particular classrooms, but also to transforming higher education as a whole.While CJSoTL-RCACEA will always welcome thought-provoking, rigorous explorations of 'what works' questions (such as the many contained in this issue), we also affirm our commitment to publishing research that cuts across this spectrum of inquiry.Indeed, several articles in this issue take up some of these other types of questions either in tandem with their focus on 'what works' or as a central point of scholarly focus.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,013 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,090 | 0,054 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».